[JackA]

I found, rather than reduce amplitude of a "loud" portion(s) of a song, it's sometimes advantages to reduce those bands of frequencies that contribute to the loudness; i.e. tame it. Like, when the chorus kicks in at the end of this song I reduced the mid-range, and you MAY now hear a flat (a clam) vocal or two (below). Also, removed some "clicks", that may have been included in the "original" mix. During the very end, some "engineer" boosted the volume and it made tape noise more apparent, but an extraneous noise was also heard, I decided to "chop" it out! You can hear my noise reduction kick in during the "Ho" ending, that means this is unacceptable (to me)! A great engineer will make any audio alteration transparent! Sorry, I was in a rush to get to work!! :-)
Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...


Actually, that is what I did with Bob Ludwig's [loud] "remastered" John Cougar song, reduced those frequencies I found annoying. But, you know those, ahem, AES members!!! :-)

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hideho.mp3

Jack

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 13-10-2016 13:12, JackA wrote:

A great engineer will make any audio alteration transparent!

That might well be pointless, it is all about the context.

Jack

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 12:08:25 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 13-10-2016 13:12, JackA wrote:

A great engineer will make any audio alteration transparent!

That might well be pointless, it is all about the context.

-- That, I cannot dispute!!

Jack


Jack

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[peakae]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:12:35 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:

Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...
Jack

What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

[JackA]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:22:00 PM UTC-4, peakae wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:12:35 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:

Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...
Jack

What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

I can see your concern. Whose your favorite music artists? You like HQ sound? Did they list all the Master tape number and/or show photos of them, just to prove they didn't master from vinyl? In other words, there is no absolute proof to assure you're getting the best sound possible? Besides, the MAJORITY of society doesn't give a hoot about HQ sound.

With audio, there's no "training", either you have it or you don't, no in betweens.

Had a Lafayette Radio mono tube amp, maybe 5 Watt RMS. Thing is, it had 5-10% THD, but you'd never know it until you opened the volume full blast. Sure, maybe with a single, steady tone, humans might hear some distortion, but not the same with complex music.

Friend of mine found Donovan's, "Mellow Yellow" in Stereo, but since the bitrate was so low, maybe 96kbps, it was just to gain someone's approval.
I worked on it a couple days, since I knew I'd probably never hear it officially released. After, I send it back to my friend Ted, reworked audio)and he made me chuckle when asking "did I find the multi-tracks". Even some people I value for the contributions and music knowledge claim, they want nothing less than 192kbps MP3s, JUST, I say, JUST because that's the "norm", these days.

So, what makes music sound good, by how well it can be enhanced, or just be how well it's recorded? You think a BASS / HIGH FREQUENCY shy version will sound GREAT at 320+kbps, or PROPER bass/treble will sound better at a lower bit rate?

All I know, over the years I gained a fair amount of applause by reworking audio, so I can't be TOTALLY wrong. Besides, MANY think I'm SHOWING OFF.

Thanks.

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:22:00 PM UTC-4, peakae wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:12:35 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:

Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...
Jack

What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Let's back up. Even here I was challenged by Randy (past participant) with a Blood, Sweat & Tears song. He posted a .FLAC for me to examine (mine was 160k MP3). It had what I did not want to hear, tape hiss noise. Granted, what he had was the Single hit mix version, mine was near Album version mix. Only TWICE after reading TONS of CD reviews, someone "yelled", if you want the best sound quality, buy this CD. Both times they were correct (other artist, Johnny Rivers).

So, do you think a FLAC will sound a lot better that contains [spent] tape hiss noise?

And, don't get me wrong about Randy, I VALUED his input! It, at least, showed me what Sony is soliciting.

Jack.

[John Williamson]

On 13/10/2016 23:21, peakae wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:12:35 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:

Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...
Jack

What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Occasionally, there is a certain fascination in hearing just how badly
he's fouled it up this time.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

peakae wrote:
What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Please do not feed the trolls.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:50:31 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
peakae wrote:
What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Please do not feed the trolls.


What is it with Scott, is he afraid of me!?

Jack


--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[peakae]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 2:50:31 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
peakae wrote:

Please do not feed the trolls.
--scott

Ahh I see 8d

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:50:31 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
peakaemastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Please do not feed the trolls.


What is it with Scott, is he afraid of me!?

Jack


--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Just a little A.R., that's all Jack.

[JackA]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 6:33:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 8:50:31 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
peakaemastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

Please do not feed the trolls.


What is it with Scott, is he afraid of me!?

Jack


--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Just a little A.R., that's all Jack.

You know who deleted two posts in this thread, one that I replied to?
Just odd to see someone questioned me, then it's deleted.

Oh, well.

Thanks.

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 6:22:00 PM UTC-4, peakae wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:12:35 PM UTC+2, JackA wrote:

Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...
Jack

What is the point of "mastering" a already mastered track, that is imported from a lossy format mp3-256k to an even worse mp3-192k format.

It is fine having fun with the plugins and learning how they work, training your ears.
But I doubt very much that anyone is interested in listening to the end result.

I can see your concern. Whose your favorite music artists? You like HQ sound? Did they list all the Master tape number and/or show photos of them, just to prove they didn't master from vinyl? In other words, there is no absolute proof to assure you're getting the best sound possible? Besides, the MAJORITY of society doesn't give a hoot about HQ sound.

With audio, there's no "training", either you have it or you don't, no in betweens.

Had a Lafayette Radio mono tube amp, maybe 5 Watt RMS. Thing is, it had 5-10% THD, but you'd never know it until you opened the volume full blast. Sure, maybe with a single, steady tone, humans might hear some distortion, but not the same with complex music.

Friend of mine found Donovan's, "Mellow Yellow" in Stereo, but since the bitrate was so low, maybe 96kbps, it was just to gain someone's approval.
I worked on it a couple days, since I knew I'd probably never hear it officially released. After, I send it back to my friend Ted, reworked audio)and he made me chuckle when asking "did I find the multi-tracks". Even some people I value for the contributions and music knowledge claim, they want nothing less than 192kbps MP3s, JUST, I say, JUST because that's the "norm", these days.

So, what makes music sound good, by how well it can be enhanced, or just be how well it's recorded? You think a BASS / HIGH FREQUENCY shy version will sound GREAT at 320+kbps, or PROPER bass/treble will sound better at a lower bit rate?

All I know, over the years I gained a fair amount of applause by reworking audio, so I can't be TOTALLY wrong. Besides, MANY think I'm SHOWING OFF.

Thanks.

Jack

Google shows this post by "peakae" was deleted? A sockpuppet perhaps?

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 15/10/2016 01:24, JackA wrote:

You know who deleted two posts in this thread, one that I replied to?
Just odd to see someone questioned me, then it's deleted.

As this is usenet, and it is an unmoderated group, the only person who
can ask the system to delete a post is the person who posted it.
However, many servers do not honour delete requests, so the post
normally gets respawned on the next sync cycle.

If you can't see a post, it's normally because you have put the poster
into your kill file.

For instance, I never see your posts unless someone responds to them.

Add usenet to audio as subjects you know nothing about.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 1:56:55 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/10/2016 01:24, JackA wrote:

You know who deleted two posts in this thread, one that I replied to?
Just odd to see someone questioned me, then it's deleted.

As this is usenet, and it is an unmoderated group, the only person who
can ask the system to delete a post is the person who posted it.
However, many servers do not honour delete requests, so the post
normally gets respawned on the next sync cycle.


Initially, you could delete any post just by copying the poster's address, but it came to an end.


If you can't see a post, it's normally because you have put the poster
into your kill file.

For instance, I never see your posts unless someone responds to them.

Add usenet to audio as subjects you know nothing about.

Just because YOU can't see anything delete, I'll chalk it up to you being a newbie!!

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[gareth magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

I found, rather than reduce amplitude of a "loud" portion(s) of a song, it's
sometimes advantages to reduce those bands of frequencies that contribute to
the loudness; i.e. tame it. Like, when the chorus kicks in at the end of
this song I reduced the mid-range, and you MAY now hear a flat (a clam)
vocal or two (below). Also, removed some "clicks", that may have been
included in the "original" mix. During the very end, some "engineer" boosted
the volume and it made tape noise more apparent, but an extraneous noise was
also heard, I decided to "chop" it out! You can hear my noise reduction kick
in during the "Ho" ending, that means this is unacceptable (to me)! A great
engineer will make any audio alteration transparent! Sorry, I was in a rush
to get to work!! :-)
Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...


Actually, that is what I did with Bob Ludwig's [loud] "remastered" John
Cougar song, reduced those frequencies I found annoying. But, you know
those, ahem, AES members!!! :-)

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hideho.mp3

Jack






Is that a bum brass note at 2.39? (The one that reverbs) Sounds like an F
instead of an E?


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:45:46 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

I found, rather than reduce amplitude of a "loud" portion(s) of a song, it's
sometimes advantages to reduce those bands of frequencies that contribute to
the loudness; i.e. tame it. Like, when the chorus kicks in at the end of
this song I reduced the mid-range, and you MAY now hear a flat (a clam)
vocal or two (below). Also, removed some "clicks", that may have been
included in the "original" mix. During the very end, some "engineer" boosted
the volume and it made tape noise more apparent, but an extraneous noise was
also heard, I decided to "chop" it out! You can hear my noise reduction kick
in during the "Ho" ending, that means this is unacceptable (to me)! A great
engineer will make any audio alteration transparent! Sorry, I was in a rush
to get to work!! :-)
Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...


Actually, that is what I did with Bob Ludwig's [loud] "remastered" John
Cougar song, reduced those frequencies I found annoying. But, you know
those, ahem, AES members!!! :-)

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hideho.mp3

Jack






Is that a bum brass note at 2.39? (The one that reverbs) Sounds like an F
instead of an E?

I like you Gareth, your spot (hear) things that are questionable! I'll have to listen closer with headphones, after my Chinese food! :-)

On my Hit List (US Hit songs that sound ill on audio CD):
Rick Derringer's, "Rock & Roll Hoochie Koo"
Jethro Tull's, "Living In The Past".
I MAY end up purchasing a turntable, JUST to gain what I once heard from vinyl!

Thanks!

Jack




Gareth.

[gareth magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:45:46 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

I found, rather than reduce amplitude of a "loud" portion(s) of a song,
it's
sometimes advantages to reduce those bands of frequencies that contribute
to
the loudness; i.e. tame it. Like, when the chorus kicks in at the end of
this song I reduced the mid-range, and you MAY now hear a flat (a clam)
vocal or two (below). Also, removed some "clicks", that may have been
included in the "original" mix. During the very end, some "engineer"
boosted
the volume and it made tape noise more apparent, but an extraneous noise
was
also heard, I decided to "chop" it out! You can hear my noise reduction
kick
in during the "Ho" ending, that means this is unacceptable (to me)! A
great
engineer will make any audio alteration transparent! Sorry, I was in a
rush
to get to work!! :-)
Reworked from a 256k MP3 "rip"...


Actually, that is what I did with Bob Ludwig's [loud] "remastered" John
Cougar song, reduced those frequencies I found annoying. But, you know
those, ahem, AES members!!! :-)

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hideho.mp3

Jack






Is that a bum brass note at 2.39? (The one that reverbs) Sounds like an
F
instead of an E?

I like you Gareth, your spot (hear) things that are questionable! I'll have
to listen closer with headphones, after my Chinese food! :-)






Might just be a stray echo from the previous stab, it's panned far right and
shouldn't be there IMHO.

Gareth.

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Please do not feed the trolls.
--scott

This nugget of hypocrisy brought to you by Purina Troll Chow, which
you used as bait to encourage the Jersey Jackoff Jackass to settle in
and take an extended crap all over this newsgroup.

[JackA]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Please do not feed the trolls.
--scott

This nugget of hypocrisy brought to you by Purina Troll Chow, which
you used as bait to encourage the Jersey Jackoff Jackass to settle in
and take an extended crap all over this newsgroup.

Feed me!!!

Jack :-)